1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to the technical field of data processing, and more particularly to a computer implemented credit application analysis and decision routing system.
2. Background Information
Obtaining credit and financing of a major consumer purchase has been done manually in the past. Typically, an applicant fills out a credit (loan) application by hand. A sales representative of the vendor from which the consumer wishes to make his purchase, using information from the consumer's application, may then call up a credit bureau to obtain by teletype a credit report on the applicant. Sometimes the credit bureau has an automated computerized system from which the sales representative can obtain the credit report on-line. The process of obtaining a credit bureau report, regardless of the method used, is hereinafter sometimes referred to as “pulling” a credit bureau report. Subscribers to a credit bureau, such as retail vendors or banks, are charged a fee by the credit bureau each time they pull a credit bureau report.
While sales representatives use credit bureau reports to gain information regarding an applicant's credit profile that will be helpful in determining which funding sources, e.g., banks, may be most likely to approve the applicant's transaction, credit bureau report reviews by sales representatives generally are somewhat superficial. This is in part due to the fact that certain information in credit bureau reports is encrypted or abbreviated in ways that render the information virtually inaccessible to someone who is not specially trained in credit bureau report analysis, and sales representatives rarely if ever have such detailed training. Consequently, the sales representative makes a judgmental or subjective credit analysis based on the information he can glean from the credit bureau report. The consumer's paper application then is faxed to one or more lenders for detailed credit analysis and a decision by the lender(s) regarding approval of the application.
Put another way, the current industry approach is that prior to submitting the application to a funding source or sources, the dealer F&I (Finance and Insurance) staff will request an inquiry copy of the applicant's credit bureau information, either manually or on-line. Currently, the credit bureau inquiry report the dealer F&I staff uses is in the so-called “TTY format” as provided by the credit bureau. Each credit bureau has its own format for their “TTY formatted inquiry response.” The dealer F&I staff must be able to read and interpret the information in the credit bureau inquiry response because they use this information to determine which funding source or sources are more likely to approve the applicant's credit application.
Often the dealer's F&I staff must request an applicant's credit bureau information from more than one credit bureau, such as when information on a credit bureau report is lacking in pertinent information, shows a negative credit history, and/or does not agree with the information provided by the applicant. The dealer F&I staff then must read and interpret multiple credit bureau TTY formatted reports consisting of lists of codes and extracts of credit information, which are, as noted earlier, difficult to understand. Finding pertinent information to assist the dealer F&I staff in choosing the appropriate funding sources or sources to receive a given application is, therefore, not easy, and there is a considerable opportunity for errors and misinterpretations to occur.
At the lender, the faxed application is entered into the lender credit analysis system and/or forwarded manually to an appropriate decision-maker to be reviewed. As part of this credit analysis process, the lender also pulls its own credit bureau report(s) on the applicant. Once a decision is made whether or not to provide an approval of the application, a written notice is prepared and faxed back to the sales representative or the lender telephones the sales representative with the lender's decision.
In the automotive sales arena in particular, when a dealer sells a vehicle, one of the important services it provides to its customers is vehicle financing. To provide this service, an auto dealer typically has agreements with multiple financial institutions to provide indirect loan application processing and funding. As the term suggests, indirect loans or indirect financing involves any financing transaction which is originated by an entity other than the funding source. For example, an auto dealer initiates automobile financing transactions for his customers (e.g., a car loan or lease), but financial institutions actually fund the transactions. These financial institutions will be hereinafter referred to interchangeably as funding sources, lenders, or banks.
An auto dealer, also referred to hereinafter as a dealership, needs access to multiple funding sources so that it can provide credit for all of its customers regardless their credit history and ability to pay. This service is very important to the dealership and most dealerships have a distinct department to provide just this service, referred to as the Finance and Insurance department, or simply the “F&I” department. The F&I department takes credit application information (e.g., Automotive Dealer Indirect Credit information) from its vehicle customers, prepares indirect loan or financing applications, hereinafter also referred to as credit applications or simply the applications, and forwards each application to the funding sources which are considered likely to provide credit for particular purchases. In cases where the dealer pulls its own credit bureau report on an applicant, the decision regarding which funding sources will be sent the application is generally based on the dealers subjective review of the credit bureau report.
Currently, the dealer either manually writes a credit application or enters the application data into an F&I computer system. In the latter case, the application is printed from the F&I system on paper and the paper application is faxed to the funding source. In a few instances certain dealers may have the ability to transmit applications from their computers via modem to a preferred funding source(s), but application processing by the funding source is still performed off-line (i.e., independently of this transmission process between the dealer and the funding source) and is not integrated as a single system with the dealer's application preparation process.
If the dealer wanted to send the application to multiple funding sources, until now, the dealer had to manually fax it or transmit it to each funding source. If the dealer wanted to make changes to the application, the new or revised paper application had to again be faxed or transmitted to the funding source or sources.
Further, after the bank received the paper credit application by fax, the bank would typically then manually enter the application data into their credit application processing system, and any changes later supplied by the dealer would also have to be manually entered. As can be readily appreciated, the manual processing of credit application data by the dealer and the bank provides many possibilities for the introduction of errors and delays in the processing, and consequently in the approval or disapproval decision regarding a credit application.
Entering the application data into the credit processing system at the bank requires bank personnel. Although a large number of automobile purchases are made on weekends, most banks either do not have any staff or do not have adequate numbers of staff available on the weekends to handle the application data volume. As no electronic system or device exists today for automating financing decisions and review application data entered at a dealership, the current approach typically results in a major backlog of data entry on Monday mornings or the first day after a bank is closed. Besides the adverse effect on workload, this also represents a delay in processing credit applications.
As described, currently a dealer uses a manual or non-automated approach to find a funding source that is willing to provide a loan to a particular dealer customer, for a particular vehicle purchase. The dealer F&I staff manually prepare the loan application and manually fax the paper application to one or multiple funding sources. The dealer F&I staff must then wait for the funding source to determine if the application is approved or disapproved, or whether additional information is required, and it is not uncommon for hours to elapse without any response from the funding sources. Should an unreasonable amount of time elapse, the F&I staff may then decide to call one or more of the funding sources which were sent the application for an update on the status of the decision process. The dealer F&I staff must wait while the funding source(s) staff enter the credit application in their credit application processing system, pull a credit bureau report(s) on the applicant, and then process the credit application data. The dealer F&I staff must keep track of when and to which funding sources a particular application has been sent, resulting in a substantial record keeping burden. This burden is further magnified when credit application volume is high, as typically occurs during sales promotions, for example.
As mentioned above, the dealer F&I staff can send an application to one, several or all funding sources available to the dealer. Sending the application to all available funding sources at the same time is sometimes referred to as “shot-gunning,” a practice used by some F&I departments to get the quickest response to a credit application. On the other hand, shot-gunning is naturally discouraged by funding sources because of the time and overhead required by the funding source staff to enter and process the credit application and the reduced probability of the funding source ultimately funding the associated loan or lease from the dealer. Manually shot-gunning applications can be time consuming and wasteful of employee resources.
Currently, there is no system permitting sharing of credit bureau report information between funding sources and dealers. Consequently, the cost of pulling credit bureau reports may be unnecessarily duplicated at the funding source and dealer levels. Additionally, as there are three different major credit bureaus in the U.S. market, and each uses a unique format and may have access to different credit information on any given individual than the other credit bureaus, the credit analysis and decision process can become further complicated. For example, if the dealer obtains its report from a different credit bureau than the one used by the funding source and discussions between the dealer and the funding source required before any decision can be made, these discussions are often hampered by the fact that the two parties to the discussion, the dealer and the funding source, do not have access to the same complete set of information which the other party is using to draw its conclusions.
Certain aspects of the above process have been automated to a limited extent, for example, according to Jones et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,239,462). However, a need has existed for a comprehensive automation of the whole credit application process to solve the above problems, as well as to provide additional flexibility and functionality in the management of the credit application process.